toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

1 participants
13530 discussions

Sage AU Paper
by Graydon Dodson 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

I have heard that Rex Walkers (of NetApp) presented a paper at a "SAGE AU" meeting in Australia discussing where NetApp is going with metadata (NT Registry, options, etc.) issues. Anyone know where the paper can be found? I have been unable to locate it. Thanks. Graydon Dodson grdodson(a)lexmark.com Lexmark International Inc.

1 0

Re: Backup solutions
by Mark D Fowle 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

With the NFS mount we are seeing 8-14 MB/s transfer rate. I could never get NDMP to work the way I wanted it too -- This is how we ended up with the solution we did. The dump data we get from the netapps (Done nightly) is used only if we have a disaster -- else all other data is either reovered from the tape backups (or from the snapshot data) We keep about 3 weeks worth of snapshots (8 daily, nightly, weekly) -- then rotate it again- so far this has worked pretty nicely now for about a year an a half --- Mark mgx(a)spruce.lsd.ornl.gov on 11/30/99 05:09:00 PM To: Fowle_Mark_D@cat.com@INTERNET cc: toasters@mathworks.com@INTERNET (bcc: Mark D. Fowle/0V/Caterpillar) Subject: Re: Backup solutions Retain Until: 12/30/99 Retention Category: G90 - Information and Reports mark ... what sort of backup rate do you get over nfs? to my single DLT7000 Q2.15 i regularly get 4-4.5MB/s (if its not crashed :-P ) backing up two F520's via NDMP. -- michael On Tue, Nov 30, Mark D Fowle wrote: > We use an nfs mount to each root of our F720 and F740 from our backup server > and just backup from that using our backup software (Alexandria) - We use a > Breece-Hill Q2.15 (with 2 DLT 7000's) to backup > the netapps, it works ok for us. > > Mark Fowle > Unix/Oracle/Metaphase Administration > Cateripllar BCP > Cary, NC

1 0

Re: Backup solutions
by Graham C. Knight 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

This is probably a good time to mention the archives. This topic goes around quite often and lots of good information can be found in the archives: http://teaparty.mathworks.com:1999/toasters/ Graham[using veritas with very good results]

1 0

Re: Backup solutions
by mgx＠spruce.lsd.ornl.gov 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

mark ... what sort of backup rate do you get over nfs? to my single DLT7000 Q2.15 i regularly get 4-4.5MB/s (if its not crashed :-P ) backing up two F520's via NDMP. -- michael On Tue, Nov 30, Mark D Fowle wrote: > We use an nfs mount to each root of our F720 and F740 from our backup server > and just backup from that using our backup software (Alexandria) - We use a > Breece-Hill Q2.15 (with 2 DLT 7000's) to backup > the netapps, it works ok for us. > > Mark Fowle > Unix/Oracle/Metaphase Administration > Cateripllar BCP > Cary, NC

1 0

RE: Backup solutions
by Dani Tal 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

We use legato networker. We backup up the snapshots. There is also new tool called "Legato NetWorker ClientPak for Network Appliance" Check with legato or write to me to get the legato presentation. Dani Tal Manager Information Systems Siemens Data Communication ltd. Tel. +972-4-9953200 X 0403 FAX. +972-4-9888097 Mobile +972-53797814 -----Original Message----- From: mgx(a)spruce.lsd.ornl.gov [SMTP:mgx@spruce.lsd.ornl.gov] Sent: Tue, 30 November, 1999 21:01 To: Paul Taylor Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com; dhug(a)connectria.com Subject: Re: Backup solutions good question. i'm in the same boat (two F520's, crashing all the time due too ontap/budtool bad interactions). if you use ndmp for backups, my understanding is that veritas netbackup is the only option. -- michael On Tue, Nov 30, Paul Taylor wrote: > > Hi. We have two netapps, an f630 and an f760. We are currently using > Budtool to back up everything, but we are less than pleased with > performance, and the fact that the product is getting EOL'd by Leggato. > What is everyone's opinion on what they use for backups? We are > considering Workstation Solutions, and Legatto, among others. Thanks, >

1 0

Re: Backup solutions
by Mark D Fowle 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

We use an nfs mount to each root of our F720 and F740 from our backup server and just backup from that using our backup software (Alexandria) - We use a Breece-Hill Q2.15 (with 2 DLT 7000's) to backup the netapps, it works ok for us. Mark Fowle Unix/Oracle/Metaphase Administration Cateripllar BCP Cary, NC mgx(a)spruce.lsd.ornl.gov on 11/30/99 03:36:00 PM To: ptaylor@connectria.com@INTERNET cc: toasters@mathworks.com@INTERNET dhug@connectria.com@INTERNET (bcc: Mark D. Fowle/0V/Caterpillar) Subject: Re: Backup solutions Retain Until: 12/30/99 Retention Category: G90 - Information and Reports good question. i'm in the same boat (two F520's, crashing all the time due too ontap/budtool bad interactions). if you use ndmp for backups, my understanding is that veritas netbackup is the only option. -- michael On Tue, Nov 30, Paul Taylor wrote: > > Hi. We have two netapps, an f630 and an f760. We are currently using > Budtool to back up everything, but we are less than pleased with > performance, and the fact that the product is getting EOL'd by Leggato. > What is everyone's opinion on what they use for backups? We are > considering Workstation Solutions, and Legatto, among others. Thanks, >

1 0

ip and e0 problem
by Patrick Day 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

i have two 740's (dot 5.2.3) as a database file server setup with an NT4 box for Lotus Notes. on the nt box, there are two nic's. one is connected to the network and the other is cross-connected to the filer's e0 nic. whenever we reboot the filer, the e0 card does not accept the 192.168.10.20 address assigned to it in the RC file. once the filer is booted, however, i can copy the line from the RC file and paste it into a telnet session and it works. i have tried several things, such as changing the order (assigning other nic ports first) and even breaking the command down into several small functions verses one long command. nothing seems to get it to work from a boot/reboot. rc file entries: ifconfig e0 192.168.10.20 mediatype 100tx `hostname`-e0 netmask 255.255.255.0 -wins ifconfig e3a 140.250.110.23 mediatype 100tx-fd `hostname`-e3a netmask 255.255.255.0 This presents a major problem for the Notes server, because if for some reason filer is rebooted, the notes server (which is not that "robust") would fail and start bouncing all the mail going to it. any help on this would be appreciated. --patrick day Bayer Corp. Clayton, NC

1 0

Re: Y2k test on Filer F720 with OnTap 5.2.2
by Patrick Day 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

Hi, we have extensively tested the 5.2.2p1 (which i am sure is as compliant as 5.2.2) on several 740's and found no problems with the date rollover. There is an upper limit around 2037 that the filer can't handle correctly. it has passed all the major date tests such as 2/29/2000, 10/10/2000, 1/1/2001, etc... you shouldn't have any problems with the rollover. --patrick day bayer corp. mathworks owner-toasters <owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com> on 11/30/99 07:45:57 AM To: "DDA.RFC-822=toasters(a)mathworks.com/P=Internet/A= /C=us"@X400 cc: Subject: Y2k test on Filer F720 with OnTap 5.2.2 I plan to change date to December 31th 1999 on our filer F720 with ONTAP 5.2.2 and see whether it is smoothly rollover to Year 2000 or not. Is there anybody have test it? I would like get some experience from you. Thank you in advance!!! Best Regards Amy

1 0

RE: Problems with file dates
by Plawner, Marom 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

I don't know if there is any relation at all, but I was having a problem in the CIFS environment. If I used the resource kit's robocopy, when I copied files over, all the times looked right. Robocopy is supposed to copy only newer files; so when I used robocopy again on the same directory, I expected only changed files to update... but the weird thing was that it said some files were OLDER (very odd), some were NEWER (odd since they didn't change), etc. I spoke with a friend of mine who also has a file and experience the same problems. More dependant on robocopy, my friend did some serious investigation and found that the problem was that the filer doesn't work properly if it isn't set to UTC. (We use UTC +5.) He changed the time zone and the problems disappeared. I don't depend on robocopy, so I haven't yet done this. I don't know if it helps, but maybe this is related to the problem. Marom Plawner Systems Group Manager Comverse Network Systems -----Original Message----- From: David H. Brierley [mailto:dhb@ssd.ray.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 11:25 PM To: Bruce Sterling Woodcock Cc: Dave Atkin; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Problems with file dates On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote: > Regardless of whether or not the dates are being set due to a bug or > improper setup > with the clients or even with the filer, Solaris should not be choking. The > correct > solution is to get Sun to issue a real working patch, and not to use Solaris > 7 in the > meantime. The problem is not limited to Solaris 7. I encountered the same problem on one of my Solaris 2.5.1 boxes. I was trying to remove an entire directory and it simply refused to remove one particular file. Since it was just one file I just pushed the whole issue aside until I could get back to it later. The next day I tried the remove again and this time it worked but then I realized I was not logged in on the Solaris machine this time but instead I was using on of our older Sunos 4.1.4 machines. -- David H. Brierley Raytheon Systems Company - Portsmouth RI Facility Work: dhb(a)ssd.ray.com Home: dave(a)galaxia.com

1 0

Problems with file dates
by Dave Atkin 29 Nov '99

29 Nov '99

We are finding an increasing number of user files (several thousand files at present) with bizarre dates, eg -rwx--x--x 1 rfx3 ug93 49 Dec 27 1931 /usr/fsa/ug93/rfx3/letter-home -rwx--x--x 1 socx12 socs 460 Jul 22 1948 /usr/fsa/extn/socx12/nov2nd The dates display mainly in the 1930s although there are a few around the year 2009! These files seem to have been created over CIFS from PCs running Windows 95. It becomes a real problem if you run Solaris 7 which seems to have numerous bugs in the area of NFS file dates. It won't read, write or delete these files - it says "Value too large for user buffer". It's all related to 64-bit vs 32-bit Solaris and whether dates are signed or unsigned. SGI systems and older Solaris systems don't have the problem. Having talked to Sun I tried patching the kernel variable nfs_32_time_ok to be 0xffffffff which appears to fix it, except it breaks other things like the utime system call. The best option at present seem to be to run a weekly script on a non-solaris 7 system to find the bad files and "touch" them. Any ideas anyone? ------------------------------------------------------ Dave Atkin, Head of Technical Services Computing Service, University of York, YORK YO10 5DD Phone: +44-1904-433804 (ddi) Fax: +44-1904-433740 Email: D.Atkin(a)york.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters